newYou can listen to Fox’s news articles!
“The Nazis received better treatment under the alien enemy law than what happened here.”
Those rather awful words were Judge Patricia Millett of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals at a controversy hearing Monday, which included the deportation of Tren de Aragua (TDA) gang members from the United States.
Millett, an Obama-appointed judge, appears to be fully embracing the tired tactics on the left. When discussing Donald Trump, we never miss an opportunity to use the word “Nazi.” Certainly, that might be a cynical interpretation.
Scoop: Top Republican Chuck Grassley sets up a quick hearing on a judge blocking Trump
However, her jammed Cen rhetoric was no coincidence. He suspects that a member of the violent Venezuelan TDA terrorist group was intended to disguise a potential weakness in her reasoning that she absolutely had the right to a court hearing before it was removed.
I give her the bounty of doubt. Sometimes, exaggeration drives valid points into the house.
Generally speaking, the legitimate process of law wins some kind of hearing on people before they are taken away from “life, freedom, or property.” It is engraved in the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Usually pasted when an individual is accused of a crime. However, that does not imply traditional court proceedings in all cases.
Importantly, deportation is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Instead, the power of deportation is drawn from the power of Congress. This is a prominent distinction in the case of TDA terrorist gangs.
Let’s take a step back.
In 1798, the 5th Congress passed a law known as the Alien Enemy Law. It was granted to the president’s sole authority to promote the removal of enemy aliens from American soil during the declared war or (Emphasis added) “Prestige-like invasion.”
Trump’s enemy’s judicial decisions are not a constitutional check and balance. They are brave snatches of the administrative authorities under a black robe cloak. It is the dismantling of the separation of our precious forces, which spirals dangerously out of control.
President Trump summoned the law based on the latter provision. Based on persuasive evidence gathered by the Department of Justice and Homeland Security, violent gang members of designated terrorist organizations have been arrested, detained and deported.
Even if Millett’s argument is accepted, the decision of an executive or administrator acting within the president’s request and authority expressly awarded by Congress constitutes an alternative and accepted form of legitimate processes (US v. JuToy, 198 US 253). Therefore, a standard judicial hearing is not necessarily required.
The use of the alien enemy laws is not novel. As explained in the previous column, it is well established, never abolished, and has been reviewed multiple times by the courts. Four different presidents evoke it, three of whom were Democrats in the 20th century.
The US Supreme Court was Ludeckev in 1948. He supported President Harry Truman’s use of law in the case of Watkins (33 US 160). The High Court declared that the deportation of enemy foreigners would be immediately ordered by enforcement action. “The essence of the president’s authority to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that the court may make a decision at his discretion,” the court said.
In other words, Congress has deliberately granted to an extraordinary power president that cannot be challenged or nullified by judges or courts. The Supreme Court recognized the risk of abuse and error, but Congress deliberately accepted the risk.
There is no question of Judge Millett’s integrity. She raises a completely legitimate point of a legitimate process, although provocative language. Given the court’s discourse on Monday, the appeals panel hopes it will find that the court’s right to hearing will never be violated, not infringing on the president’s free right to invoke the alien enemy law. Both are true.
The Supreme Court may have an obligation to sort it all out.
The most troublesome thing about this case is the actions of district court judge James Boasberg, who issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and launched Imbroglio when he requested that the plane carrying TDA terrorists be stopped in the air and returned to the US.
The absurdity of that order is self-evident. The judges have no authority to direct the direction of travel beyond American airspace. But as he continues to stick to departure times and other detailed flight information, it has become his irrational obsession. He embodies the typical qualities of an “activist judge.” He loses his objectivity while becoming obsessed with his own imagination.
Unfortunately, federal benches are overly popular with them.
Many have become magical accessories in the shameful practice of “judge shopping.” Democrats and liberal groups have promoted it to art form. Whenever Trump does something – they compete like bats from hell, competing against preferred judges and preferred judges whose outcomes are pre-defined against Trump. It’s like rigging a roulette table.
The Trump deportation case is a prime example. The original five plaintiffs were being held in Texas the moment their TRO petition was filed. Under the law, only the federal courts in Texas have jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals, not Boasburg in Washington, D.C., should abandon the entire lawsuit on its own, but I don’t think that will happen.
There is another, equally important reason why Boasberg’s TRO is a lawless abuse of power. His order is to stop deportation, a “universal injunction.” That is, a national order that goes far beyond his very limited district authorities.
The tragedy of the universal injunction has reached epidemic level. It’s the latest hug that Trump’s enemies are trying to bl on his agenda. It is another insidious form of “lawfare.” They are now planning to drag his policy initiatives in, as their criminal case couldn’t stop him from rising to presidency.
It is no coincidence that Trump’s enemy has obtained more injunctions against him in the first two months of his presidency than his predecessor’s entire four-year term. These unelected activist judges appointed “super-presidents” with the power to defeat the elected president.
Their judicial decisions are not a constitutional check and balance. They are brave snatches of the administrative authorities under a black robe cloak. It is the dismantling of the separation of our precious forces, which spirals dangerously out of control.
For more information about Fox News, click here
It’s time for Congress, which created the federal court, to intervene to curb abuse. They must limit or limit the jurisdiction of district courts and bulldoze the fraudulent and unethical practices of “judge shopping.”
Both the House and Senate have separate, but similar bills designed to do so. Soon, the lower room will hold a hearing aimed at moving forward with the measures that will be named “The Unfair Control Act.”
At the same time, it is mandatory by the Supreme Court to move prominently to reassert itself. Judges should seize control over cases in which lower court judges direct their powers and issued decisions that would slash the law. These awards must be rejected.
So many Americans support President Trump’s resolve to kill, rape, eliminate, and rapidly drive out enemy aliens who commit, killing, raping, eliminating an endless array of despicable crimes. TDA is an anthropomorphism of “predatory invasion.” Citizens are naturally furious that judges like Boasberg are more interested in the welfare of terrorist criminals than innocent victims.
Click here to get the Fox News app
The federal judiciary is broken. Doing nothing is not an option and cosmetic changes are rarely achieved. New muscle rules need to be imposed to correct chronic abuse by activist judges.
The question is… who has the fortitude to do it?
For more information about Gregg Jarrett, click here
